![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Even the role of policy itself is re-examined in the context of systemic reform. Can policy become a tool to provide the conditions that lead to change inside classrooms instead of a set of prescriptions and mandates? What follows is a discussion of some of the issues and trade-offs in thinking about policies for technology acquisition in the context of systemic reform. I discuss these under four broad topics ongoing technology planning; locus of decision making; professional development; and equity concerns. At the end of each discussion are some rules of thumb to consider.
Ongoing planning. The rapid pace of technological evolution precludes traditional long-range planning. It is difficult even to know what will be available next year, and certainly not what the options will be five years down the road. Two trends, however, are likely to continue what exists now will become less expensive and new products will be smaller, more powerful, and easier to use. This ensures two pervasive and permanent conditions technology users will always desire newer equipment, and schools will always be out of date.
Strategic planning for technology purchases, therefore, needs to focus on broad goals for the system, the role of technology in achieving those, and mechanisms for maximizing use and therefore cost effectiveness. Rather than specifying a series of steps, specific hardware and software, and a schedule, useful plans describe a set of principles on which purchases about decisions must be based. Kentucky's Master Plan for Educational Technology is based on such a set of principles (called Strategic Decisions) in Table 2. These principles then become the structure within which decisions can be decentralized without compromising compatibility and quality.
Ideally, decisions should be driven by what will be--not by what is--and by how technology can contribute to this transformation. Thus, for example, decisions about networks need to consider the information needs of moving towards and supporting a more decentralized system. Likewise, decisions about hardware and software should anticipate the expansion of performance assessments and portfolios which are expected to lessen reliance on standardized test scores. Decision makers should feel less pressure to base major purchases on their track record in raising standardized test scores in the short run rather than their contributions to lasting improvement in understanding, problem solving and thinking strategies.
Imagining future instead of present organizational structures also makes possible more cost effective uses of technology. For example, if four teachers are jointly responsible for 120 students in four rooms, one room might house technology and still be readily accessible to all. Without such team planning and collaboration, such sharing of technology would be cumbersome at best.
It is equally important to make the ongoing planning process both iterative and participatory at each level of the system. This process itself becomes a vehicle for continuous communication and education about available technologies and their potential. Here, policymakers face the need to balance breadth of participation in the planning process against the need to make decisions and act on them--the broader the participation, the longer it takes.
KETS Strategic decisions are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------- |Rules of Thumb for Technology Planning | | | |+Build in flexibility to respond to rapid changes in technology. | |For example, choose open-ended maximum five-year replacement | |cycle. | | | |+Create an iterative and participative planning mechanism that | |ties technology acquisition to challenging goals for student | |learning and organizational change. | ------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralized decisions . The rhetoric of decentralization calls for making decisions at the level of the system most appropriate for the particular decision. So, for example, decisions about transportation are probably most appropriate at the district level whereas decisions about which software to purchase belong at the school, team, or individual level. Creating a telecommunications system probably requires state-level decisions, and perhaps federal as well. Such a decentralized system presumes that the resources and the know-how rest at the same level at which decisions are made.
There is no guarantee, however, that making decisions more democratic will make them any better. Policies and networks to facilitate communication and information sharing up and down and across all levels of the system are necessary but not sufficient. Delegating decisions about technology to schools without also providing the knowledge and other supports (time to learn, test new approaches, observe others) is unlikely to increase the quality of the decisions. However, whether the decisions are better or worse, when those who must live with their outcomes are also those who make the choices, they will feel more ownership in those choices. For example, in one district, the curriculum coordinator--an expert in constructivist teaching and learning but a novice in computer technology--mistakenly ordered computers without hard drives precluding their use for the very ends he imagined. When state and district personnel make such decisions, they are less likely to feel responsible for poor choices and teachers feel free to ignore the equipment.
Decisions about technology may necessitate a larger cast of characters than is typical for most purchases. Decisions must be driven ultimately by their connection to student learning. As illustrated above, both technical and instructional expertise is important as is knowledge of product reliability and compatibility. Different decisions may be appropriate for different groups, even within schools. For example, the Cupertino/Fremont (CA) Model Technology Schools Project created two school-based mechanisms for faculties to choose technology tied to goals for student learning (David et al 1989). Teachers develop and continually revise Personal Learning Plans describing their individual goals for learning technology, including productivity goals and instructional applications. The plans include flexible timelines and demonstrations of achievement as well as hardware and software needs. In grade-level teams or departments, groups of teachers jointly create Department Technology Plans for technology acquisition based on their individual Personal Learning Plans, team or departmental goals, and the need to share equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rules of Thumb for Decentralized Decision Making | | | |+Decentralize budgets and decisions about hardware and software | |to schools and provide access to information about choices. | | | |+Facilitate communication and information sharing up, down, and | |across the system and with the community. Create districtwide | |and statewide networks to give schools/districts immediate access| |to budget and other data for staffing and management. | | | |+Encourage school planning that ties technology choices to | |learner outcomes, directly through instructional applications | |or indirectly through increasing staff productivity, learning, | |and communication. | -------------------------------------------------------------------
[Policy Issues and Implications (Continued)]